From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: Make rt_rq->pushable_tasks updates drive rto_mask
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 12:54:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xhsmhpm2prnd1.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230815142121.MoZplZUr@linutronix.de>
Ok, back to this :)
On 15/08/23 16:21, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> What I still observe is:
> - CPU0 is idle. CPU0 gets a task assigned from CPU1. That task receives
> a wakeup. CPU0 returns from idle and schedules the task.
> pull_rt_task() on CPU1 and sometimes on other CPU observe this, too.
> CPU1 sends irq_work to CPU0 while at the time rto_next_cpu() sees that
> has_pushable_tasks() return 0. That bit was cleared earlier (as per
> tracing).
>
> - CPU0 is idle. CPU0 gets a task assigned from CPU1. The task on CPU0 is
> woken up without an IPI (yay). But then pull_rt_task() decides that
> send irq_work and has_pushable_tasks() said that is has tasks left
> so….
> Now: rto_push_irq_work_func() run once once on CPU0, does nothing,
> rto_next_cpu() return CPU0 again and enqueues itself again on CPU0.
> Usually after the second or third round the scheduler on CPU0 makes
> enough progress to remove the task/ clear the CPU from mask.
>
If CPU0 is selected for the push IPI, then we should have
rd->rto_cpu == CPU0
So per the
cpumask_next(rd->rto_cpu, rd->rto_mask);
in rto_next_cpu(), it shouldn't be able to re-select itself.
Do you have a simple enough reproducer I could use to poke at this?
> I understand that there is a race and the CPU is cleared from rto_mask
> shortly after checking. Therefore I would suggest to look at
> has_pushable_tasks() before returning a CPU in rto_next_cpu() as I did
> just to avoid the interruption which does nothing.
>
> For the second case the irq_work seems to make no progress. I don't see
> any trace_events in hardirq, the mask is cleared outside hardirq (idle
> code). The NEED_RESCHED bit is set for current therefore it doesn't make
> sense to send irq_work to reschedule if the current already has this on
> its agenda.
>
> So what about something like:
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> index 00e0e50741153..d963408855e25 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> @@ -2247,8 +2247,23 @@ static int rto_next_cpu(struct root_domain *rd)
>
> rd->rto_cpu = cpu;
>
> - if (cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
> + if (cpu < nr_cpu_ids) {
> + struct task_struct *t;
> +
> + if (!has_pushable_tasks(cpu_rq(cpu)))
> + continue;
> +
IIUC that's just to plug the race between the CPU emptying its
pushable_tasks list and it removing itself from the rto_mask - that looks
fine to me.
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + t = rcu_dereference(rq->curr);
> + /* if (test_preempt_need_resched_cpu(cpu_rq(cpu))) */
> + if (test_tsk_need_resched(t)) {
We need to make sure this doesn't cause us to loose IPIs we actually need.
We do have a call to put_prev_task_balance() through entering __schedule()
if the previous task is RT/DL, and balance_rt() can issue a push
IPI, but AFAICT only if the previous task was the last DL task. So I don't
think we can do this.
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + continue;
> + }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> return cpu;
> + }
>
> rd->rto_cpu = -1;
>
> Sebastian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-11 22:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-11 11:20 Valentin Schneider
2023-08-15 14:21 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2023-09-11 10:54 ` Valentin Schneider [this message]
2023-09-20 13:38 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2023-09-25 8:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2023-09-25 12:09 ` Valentin Schneider
2023-09-25 8:55 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for Valentin Schneider
2023-09-25 10:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-25 12:21 ` Valentin Schneider
2023-09-28 21:21 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xhsmhpm2prnd1.mognet@vschneid.remote.csb \
--to=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®